RogueSpecterGaming

I've noticed you are using DLAA as well so that might not present the best picture either. MSAA is better in terms of clarity but comes with a bigger performance hit especially when set to 4x. I havent really used DLAA since I have AMD so I've been using MSAA.

That's because it is correct. The AGM65 is notorious for a bad image. This video is a 65G still IR like the D. Cant seem to find the one video with D model but the seekers are same, IR. If you are coming from other aircraft in DCS where the image seems clearer then surprise cuz that isnt the case with the F16. Mavericks on the F16 are probably the best modelled and hopefully ED transfer the modelling to other airframes to include the boresighting. https://youtu.be/S08ci2rxFAo?si=RhMzQP43G5OiFr7d

He was just explaining in more detail what the issue is. He isn't saying it should be able to present an image while pointing towards the sky. He is saying it shouldn't and provides examples of it doing what it should not be able to. This issue has to deal with how ED modelled the A-G radar function of the jet. And I am sure they are tracking. Edit: not sure why it posted the same thing twice.

The TGP will give you slight drag pulling the jet in that direction yes. If you have an axis to use for the roll trim I suggest using that as the trim hat on the stick is sensitive and you have to flick it to make smaller adjustments.

The HUD slew has a different slew rate than other sensors, but if you have the Warthog throttle I suggest using a curve since that axis is extremely small. The rdr cursor control on the F16 irl uses a pressure based setup so the more pressure you apply the faster the slew will move.

Can you post a short track of what you are talking about? Depending on the direction you came in from when you placed the markpoint initially it will appear slightly off if you come in from another direction.

Yeah, that's weird. Lmao maybe we will get better simulation in the future.

First off, I am not the one who marked it as "correct-as-is", that is the ED team who does that. Second, don't send links to try to prove something when the screenshots you just shared are from a document for the other F16 sim. Also, kinda weird how you took screenshots from another doc but linked to another one as if I wouldn't find where you actually grabbed those screenshots. Third off, if you have actual publically available source material that contradicts what is in this sim send it directly to either Nineline or BigNewy. Thank you and have a good day.

Your "F-16C real" photo is from a much earlier version of the F16C and most likely a much earlier version of the radar as well. And who knows if what we are looking at has moving targets on it. I think the squares a bit too big personally, but not too far off.

All good lol I figured it was a confusion thing.

Are you thinking that the phrase "Air-to-Ground" means that it should have an "Air" capability to the radar while also being able to have the "Ground" capability?? Are you thinking it should show you air targets as well??

PGM 1 is the most accurate, not PGM 5. PGM 5 is the least accurate. But also, the original bug that you linked to, had to deal with the accuracy of the HARM itself when a SAM's radar turned off. This was addressed in the latest update. Seems like a misunderstanding of how the system works. PGM 2 is still pretty accurate but it should not have been as accurate as it was when radar emissions stopped. Weapons. Fixed the AGM-88C being overly accurate, even when the target radar emissions cease. Fixed edge case where a target ID is passed to the missile, but the target stops radiating before seeker delay. Increased seeker range to match HAS implementation more closely.

I've personally seen TGP, INS, and I've had the elec sys caution light come on because I ran the jet on battery power only for too long. But it is randomized so you might or might not get any failures. The battery one should be all the time if only battery is on but maybe one day.

There are random system failures implemented if you have the setting enabled. But the ME failures is something a bit different and probably will take a long time to be implemented as they will be more controllable. If you look at the A10C you can see how many different things you can setup to fail and the precentage of when or if they happen.

It is always helpful to post a track if you have one, and it is decently short to show the issue. If it was on a mp server can you replicate it in a sp setting and post the track and keep it short please. Besides that I will ask, what server and do you know for sure if the targets were stationary or moving targets?